prev <-> next
[2021-01-26 22:12:28] - so dumb omg. i wish there was a way to capitalize on this dumb behavior, but i'm not sure how i would do that. ~a
[2021-01-26 22:09:58] - christ, now musk is encouraging this shit. GME ended up at $147.98 (+93%) today and is at $233.98 after-hours right now. what a clusterfuck. - pierce
[2021-01-26 21:35:02] - i do like to spend money on bikes, but that's usually ~$1k/year. ~a
[2021-01-26 21:25:06] - "Got to do something with your $ at some point!" i spend maybe too much money. i don't have that as a problem, hah. ~a
[2021-01-26 21:22:39] - daniel: i was literally about to type out a comment about roth-ladder. it's not easy, but you can get money out of your ira before 59.5 (roth-ladder isn't even the only way). you'll still want a taxable account balance regardless. ~a
[2021-01-26 21:22:21] - a: You going to retire from your own company? Got to do something with your $ at some point! Though probably not a lambo for you (https://www.pedalsure.com/blog/most-expensive-road-bikes-all-time ??) -Daniel
[2021-01-26 21:21:10] - a: true-ish unless i need the taxable money to cover early retirmement for some period of time until i reach 59.5 or have established a working roth ladder, but I do get those are pretty specific to me concerns. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 21:20:39] - i personally won't be buying any lambos regardless of how well my investing goes. but, to each their own
~a[2021-01-26 21:19:49] - daniel: if you're thinking its gambling, you're probably not going to make sound investing decisions. this aside, you are right, you can't withdraw from your ira to buy a lambo. if you have a large taxable and tax-sheltered balances though, you can always withdraw from taxable balances to buy a lambo if your individual stocks do well in your ira. right? ~a
[2021-01-26 20:48:27] - a: That assumes I don't want gambling winnings though right? (At least for awhile). If I'm trying to gamble and want to buy a lambo or whatnot then it has to be taxable right? -Daniel
[2021-01-26 20:44:14] - a: Good point on the IRA. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 20:31:57] - daniel: i recommend using a $0/trade broker, if you can. there are so many now. also, i recommend using traditional ira or roth ira money if you can: you will avoid having to worry about the tax implications of your trades (i.e. you'll pay much less in taxes). if that means literally putting your side-hustle into boring equities (low tax), so you can use ira money for individual stocks, i still think this is maybe best? ~a
[2021-01-26 20:30:24] - daniel: congrats!
i say make your own decisions. (since way before pvtm) i've been buying some of the stocks that paul discusses, but not all of them. ~a[2021-01-26 20:22:37] - So should I just go to PvtM and buy your stocks Paul? -Daniel
[2021-01-26 20:22:18] - In what feels like a philosphical win of sorts for Paul - I think I'm going to take some of my side hustle money and invest a portion in actually picking stocks. I think its enough that if it does something it will actually be cool and not so much that in the overall place in my life I don't super mind losing it. So yay gambling? -Daniel
[2021-01-26 20:15:44] - antony blinken confirmed as secretary of state. A. Blinken... well played, writers. - pierce
[2021-01-26 19:53:31] - "nobody would ever have any photo like that, ever. So, [Kellyanne Conway], you’re going to fucking jail" quote from kellyanne conway's daughter. this story sounds horrible and hope at least half of it is false. ~a
[2021-01-26 18:30:12] - groping a child through their clothing does not constitute sexual assault. or so rules an indian court. "while there he touched her chest and tried to remove her underwear". wtf india. ~a
[2021-01-26 18:23:02] - paul: i watched some of "reality check" today. it's definitely like a "oriley factor" or "hannity" type show. it wasn't journalism, it was opinions and shit. ~a
[2021-01-26 17:55:46] - a: things seem fine now. - mig
[2021-01-26 17:50:58] - is it back? things seem to have gotten back to normal in the past 10 minutes. ~a
[2021-01-26 17:50:00] - i can't work right now because vpn is shot and path of exile is having issues too. super mad! - mig
[2021-01-26 17:48:38] - my amazon echo was having weird issues too. - mig
[2021-01-26 17:47:51] - washingtonpost link about the internet today. internet issues are affecting verizon, slack, and zoom, which i was noticing. i'm on verizon fios. things seem to be getting better though. ~a
[2021-01-26 17:39:26] - paul: reminds me of the lindell / pelosi conversation this morning. ~a
[2021-01-26 17:33:30] - a: I'm having major issues with Twitch right now, I just upgraded my internet today so thought it might be related to that, but other stuff seems fine. - mig
[2021-01-26 16:59:21] - my internet seems fucked today (not sure if its related, but, lots of stuff seems down for other people too. there are definitely multiple problems). if anybody has any message board problems, please lmk. ~a
[2021-01-26 16:36:09] - paul: i'm with daniel. what pelosi did and what lindell did aren't even on the same ball-field. i just checked, the policy didn't exist in 2016, so pelosi couldn't have been violating a policy that didn't exist. (link to policies in 2018) ~a
[2021-01-26 16:28:18] - paul: "The account you referenced has been permanently suspended due to repeated violations of our Civic Integrity Policy" i know you don't like their election misinformation policy, but it is a policy. maybe the policy didn't exist in 2016? or pelosi wasn't repeatedly violating it? where's the evidence that twitter was being biased? the policy. ~a
[2021-01-26 16:23:24] - Paul: I'm also never sure given the format of the message board how serious you are in all your assertions or just casually / more light heartedly making some of these claims. If you honestly can't tell the difference b/w Mr My Pillow still going on about the election being stolen vs Pelosi's hijacked comment I'm not sure what to do with that. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 16:21:10] - Its also in the context of Pelosi was pushing for action from Congress / DOJ and Trump /Mr My Pillow are trying to get people to invade the US Capitol so again, not the same thing. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 16:11:04] - I don't think Pelosi meant literally stolen in a sense of people miscounting. I think she did mean hijacking the process and getting help from foreign powers that you aren't supposed to. Again also the difference is what is true and provable (court cases / investigations that didn't get laughed out of court vs trumps that did). -Daniel
[2021-01-26 15:57:35] - paul: no. trump would lace it with verifiable lies. he can't help himself, and you know it. also, you'd have a harder time finding economic experts that could agree that trump would be able to eliminate the debt in 4 years given the republicans history of outspending democrats. ~a
[2021-01-26 15:55:58] - a: So if Trump had given a speech where he predicted he would eliminate the debt in 4 years and Fox covered it with the headline: "Trump gives (quite factual) economic speech" it would be totally fine and not weird at all? -Paul
[2021-01-26 15:52:04] - paul: i did read them through. yes most of them are predictions, but maybe that's the point: there are predictions, that experts can agree or disagree on (all of the experts cnn found seem to be agreeing with biden here): but there weren't any lies, so fact checkers have less to quibble about. everything is quite factual. ~a
[2021-01-26 15:49:13] - a: I wasn't saying there were lies (although if you read through, tons of them are just predictions that really can't be labeled true or false yet). It was more that instead of just reporting on the fact checking, we apparently need to have random asides praising how factual things are in chyrons and headlines. -Paul
[2021-01-26 15:48:01] - Daniel: https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080 Lots of people were making the claim that the election was stolen. Is "hijacked" close enough or do I need to find one with exact word "stolen"? -Paul
[2021-01-26 15:46:56] - paul: "Okay, I'm done" what about his economic speech wasn't factual? there was some stuff that were forward-looking predictions, but where we the lies? we're used to a huge heaping pile of verifiable lies in trump speeches, so when fact checking biden speeches, it's important to point out how fact-checking results are different from the past four years. ok, i'm done. ~a
[2021-01-26 15:43:19] - Paul: Close! Except I don't think the claim that was spread about 2016 was stolen but improperly influenced / Trump cooperating with them. Which also wasn't untrue. So yeah. Not the same. -Daniel
[2021-01-26 15:42:46] - paul: 50 units of 2021-02-19 115 call. uhh, what? he paid like $55 per share (so for one thing, he paid a quarter of a million dollars, but also), he thinks it'll go to well above $170 per share? $170 per share is his break-even point? ~a
[2021-01-26 15:41:37] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/fact-check-biden-economic-stats-pandemic-rescue-plan/index.html "Fact-checking 7 statistical claims from Biden's (quite factual) economic speech" Really enjoying the new editorializing parenthesis from CNN recently. Okay, I'm done. Sorry. I just keep finding irksome stuff (there's actually a ton I didn't post too). -Paul
[2021-01-26 15:38:00] - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/twitter-permanently-suspends-mypillow-ceo-election-misinformation-n1255651 Looks like it's not just threats of violence, but repeated spreading of election misinformation which can get you Twitter banned as well. I guess that didn't apply to the claims that Russia stole the 2016 election? -Paul
[2021-01-26 15:35:41] - https://twitter.com/chamath/status/1354089928313823232 Billionaires are getting into the fun too. -Paul
[2021-01-26 14:51:05] - a: Nice! That is double the 15% GME is up.
-Paul[2021-01-26 14:48:02] - paul: bynd +30% today (apparently, joining forces with pep). i have 22 shares.
~a[2021-01-26 13:50:09] - paul: to answer your question i sold at my positions at 10:40 and 10:54, heh. the quasi-short wasn't as quasi-short as i thought it would be, which was good with hindsight. i bailed on my positions (2022-01-21 17.0 put and 2021-04-16 22.0 put) at the same price i bought them at, and they're both available at similar prices now. but the underlying asset went from 39.9 to 133 (yes, it was very close to the current ATH: straddling it). ~a
[2021-01-26 13:38:49] - paul: yeah, it's gmt. i need to fix that. ~a
[2021-01-26 04:41:12] - Daniel: https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-billion-into-melvin-capital-management-11611604340 The funny thing is that the person who bought at the absolute top probably will end up losing a lot less than many of the short sellers have. -Paul
[2021-01-26 04:37:20] - a: What is the timestamp that the message board uses? I'm curious when "2021-01-25 16:09:02" was. How close to the high (for today, at least) did you bail on your quasi-short? -Paul
[2021-01-26 00:13:55] - the senate trial officially began today. ~a
[2021-01-25 22:35:00] - meh, he's out a few thousand. though he'll be even more upset if it goes to ~$5. ~a
[2021-01-25 22:10:33] - a: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l4sg3u/can_i_get_a_flair_for_buying_gme_at_the_literal/ Yup entertaining! -Daniel
[2021-01-25 22:09:45] - daniel: "entertaining"
~a[2021-01-25 22:08:17] - GME finally came back down some. Its a very entertaining saga for me to follow. -Daniel
[2021-01-25 20:58:46] - hmmm, they did discuss that in the press briefing today. i'll be honest though, i don't remember what they said. ~a
[2021-01-25 20:46:39] - a: I mean, the administration being 5 days old cuts both ways. There's not a lot to go on all around. But have we seen a lot of media coverage dispelling the "no COVID plan" statement? -Paul
[2021-01-25 19:44:52] - paul: "this start" based on one chyron, on one opinion show, on one news network? try not to jump to conclusions, man. ~a
[2021-01-25 19:34:58] - a: That's the way it has been for every presidential administration in memory, that's not a specific knock on Biden or Psaki. I just hope the media will be as interested in challenging lies from the Biden administration as it was for the Trump administration. Based on this start, I'm not optimistic. -Paul
[2021-01-25 19:33:29] - a: "that we've gone back to the old way, is refreshing" I agree that it is pretty likely that things will be better, but we have no proof of that yet. The administration is like 5 days old. It's a little early to be making such definitive statements. And even while I'll agree the Biden administration will be miles better, I still think there will be a lot of lying and spinning going on. -Paul
[2021-01-25 19:28:56] - paul: Depends on definition of smart? Good for the citizens in terms of their ability to know truth? No. Good for the network to make profit? Yes. -Daniel
[2021-01-25 19:28:03] - paul: just because two people say the same thing doesn't mean they should be treated the same way. i watched all of mceany's press briefings (and some of the sanders ones): she was asked to defend the indefensible. this was probably super stressful, so they kinda stopped having press briefings, and often didn't let people ask questions. that we've gone back to the old way, is refreshing. ~a
[2021-01-25 19:17:56] - a: Larger question: Is it smart for presumably "objective" news sources to have editorial sections which can sometimes be difficult to differentiate from the news portions? I'm pretty sure a large percentage of Americans probably couldn't tell the difference between CNN News and CNN Editorial. (This obviously isn't just focused on CNN, but applies to everybody including Fox and everything else). -paul
[2021-01-25 19:16:03] - a: Okay, that seems a lot more reasonable, although even for editorializing that seems a little weak. After all, didn't Kayleigh Mcenany promise to always tell the truth in her first week or so? I doubt any spokesperson is going to get up there and promise to lie and spin... -Paul
[2021-01-25 18:43:33] - paul: this might be an editorial show. ~a
[2021-01-25 18:42:27] - ah yes. this was a sunday. ~a
[2021-01-25 18:41:43] - paul: seems to be quite the editorial, yikes. which show was it on? (maybe its a show where editorials are expected?) 16:40 GMT is 11:40 eastern. 11:00 eastern on cnn is "CNN Newsroom" except on sundays. do you know what day this was? ~a
[2021-01-25 18:36:10] - https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1353532195588202497 Speaking of Psaki and media bias, I actually didn't believe this wasn't photoshopped at first. Is there a good defense for this chyron? -Paul
[2021-01-25 18:00:36] - in other words, parler was allowing a bit "more" than twitter seems to be in general. ~a
[2021-01-25 17:58:22] - paul: well my example below was real. i didn't make it up. that's what someone said on parler. here are some more. there's likely no satire here, but its always hard to know for sure. ~a
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22232524/Screen_Shot_2021_01_13_at_9.35.11_AM.png){kind=link}
[2021-01-25 17:55:38] - a: And I'm curious to see what all the threats of violence on Parler that were so unacceptable were. Was it really something.... so direct that I'm not even going to take a chance on posting it here? Or was it stupid stuff close to the border like these where people fantasized about killing people? -Paul
[2021-01-25 17:54:38] - a: I agree they aren't illegal threats of violence and should fall under free speech from a legal perspective, but it feels like threats to me. If somebody told me they wanted me on a missing person's poster or had written a story about me being catapulted into an oncoming train I would be concerned. -Paul
[2021-01-25 17:51:22] - paul: i'm on the fence here: both of these are satire/sarcasm/hyperbole for effect. violence is *def* being "glorified", but there are no literal calls to violence here. ex, think of this in a non-sarcastic/joking manner: "ARMED WITH RIFLE, HANDGUN, 2 KNIVES AND AS MUCH AMMO AS YOU CAN CARRY". i'm not saying twitter is good about removing calls to violence (or glorification of violence either), but these are not good examples. ~a
[2021-01-25 17:46:54] - And to be clear, I think those should probably stay up and those people shouldn't be banned, but I feel like anybody who is even a moderate user of Twitter would know that there are threats of violence all the damned time on there and Twitter does nothing about it. -Paul
[2021-01-25 17:45:16] - Just stepping back into the whole "Parler was taken down because people on there were advocating violence" argument: I checked out why J.K. Rowling was trending on Twitter and found both of these tweets within probably the first 30 seconds of reading through: https://twitter.com/marioknowIes/status/1353745559669104661 and https://twitter.com/TheBenKaye/status/1353746451130683392 -Paul
[2021-01-25 17:09:52] - yah. ~a
[2021-01-25 17:09:29] - a: Yeah, I know you can do a lot of reasonable things with options like hedging (as you mentioned) and using other options to cap your potential losses and all sorts of other things. It just seems to violate the KISS principle for me.
-Paul[2021-01-25 16:56:27] - paul: looks like you can extend an expiration date by buying+selling together. it seems like options allow some concept of "chaining" (they also call it a "leg"). still, its probably going to cost you if you wait too long. ~a
[2021-01-25 16:51:35] - i guess some (or most?) of people are doing it covered, but still. ~a
[2021-01-25 16:50:47] - yep. "sell to open" (i.e. writing the contract)? seems very dangerous . . . just as bad as shorting i think. and 100% of options that are for sale was because somebody did that. so crazy. ~a
[2021-01-25 16:49:46] - a: And that's not even getting into things like shorting or equivalents. -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:49:30] - a: Yeah, options seem like they super complicate things by adding in a time component, so not only do you have to be right about a company over-performing, but you also have to hope the market realizes it before your option expires.
-Paul[2021-01-25 16:39:58] - paul: i worry there's a huge dose of "irrational markets": if the spot price stays irrational forever, then i guess it doesn't matter what options you hold. maybe options trading isn't for me. ~a
[2021-01-25 16:37:27] - paul: ah yes. ok, well, sorry i don't understand any of that either.
~a[2021-01-25 16:36:55] - a: Well, no, I understand the mechanics of it, but I have a hard time understanding how others value options and why. It's super non-intuitive. -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:36:11] - a: Uh... I guess I mostly understand it, but it takes an embarrassingly large amount of work to figure things out. "Okay, so this is a call... and I own it... and the expiration date is 3 weeks away and the price is going up... so does that mean the price of my option should be going up? What about a call whose expiration is 10 weeks away? Let me get a pencil..." -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:25:35] - paul: it's possible you don't understand how regular stock market prices works? you start with a "book" of limit orders: bids (people who want to buy) and asks (people who want to sell). if any of the limit orders overlap with currently waiting limit orders (or if any market orders come in) then you get a "filled" trade. none of this pricing work differently for options, except the "thing" being traded is fundamentally different
~a[2021-01-25 16:15:34] - paul: "I don't super understand how pricing of options work" can you explain which part of this system you don't understand? i think i can explain the mechanics of this now, but you'll have to explain your confusion, so i know how to explain it. ~a
[2021-01-25 16:10:42] - And my new name is Palu.
[2021-01-25 16:10:35] - a: I don't know. I don't super understand how pricing of options work. I suspect it could be for what I just said below, though. GME is somehow both simultaneously less appealing AND more appealing as a short right now. -Palu
[2021-01-25 16:09:30] - Short squeezes are so fascinating because as the price skyrockets, more and more people must see it as a tempting short even as the current shorts are getting killed. I heard that apparently close to 100% of the float is somehow still sold short? -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:09:02] - paul: i did something weird this morning. i decided, based on hindsight, that my option positions were dumb. so, i looked at the price to get out of my option positions. it cost me $0 to get out (proceeds==cost, exactly). whyyyyyy? should it have been super expensive to get out of my option positions? why $0? irrational markets? maybe people think the price is going to drop? still, seems weird that it was exactly net $0?! ~a
[2021-01-25 16:07:04] - Sorry, that last was about GME. Whiplash from changing topics so fast. -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:06:47] - Daniel: Even the twitter sections I frequent (ie, not day trading people but long term investor types) are all talking about it. General consensus is that this is crazy, won't end well, but also a little schadenfreude at Citron. -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:05:22] - Daniel: "Did your daughters not get excited about her?" Not that I know of. Talia was into Elizabeth Warren when she watched some of the debates with me, but I have no way of knowing if her gender had anything to do with it. Both girls went over to Gurkie's mother's house to watch the inauguration but from what I heard they were pretty bored (I wasn't there, was working). -paul
[2021-01-25 16:03:04] - Daniel: I know I've read some articles about how certain political groups "value" different things (like fairness / equality / justice / truth) more than others and that can affect career choices, but I don't know how scientific that is. -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:02:04] - Daniel: "Do you wonder why that is?" A little, sure. I assume it's a personality thing. Whatever same impulses that drive somebody to be more left leaning also drives them to want to be journalists (or the opposite: the impulses that drive somebody to be more right leaning repel them from wanting to be journalists). -Paul
[2021-01-25 16:00:34] - The GME story is bonkers now. I checked NYT business front page (Andrea gets it) to see if it was on there. It wasn't but I almost expected it to be. -Daniel
[2021-01-25 15:57:38] - a: +100% now. This is getting beyond crazy. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:53:35] - I think Harris' record is important too and its not great from a progressive view point. I'm not arguing against that point. I do think her skin color is important in other ways but less concrete ways. Its more a symbol that the club of leaders of america is open to people with different skin colors / genders. DId your daughters not get excited about her? Alex definitely was stoked and asked questions about being a lady in charge.-Daniel
[2021-01-25 15:51:22] - Paul: I think the knee / neck joke would be in worse taste because its a much more obvious reference to a specific person / instance. I don't think her joke is great but again I think people making starving / hydration jokes more generally so no I don't think its as bad but I get thats a subjective call that is probably fed by both of our overall biases. -Daniel
[2021-01-25 15:49:27] - Paul: "majority (perhaps vast majority?) of journalists are liberal." - Do you wonder why that is? -Daniel
[2021-01-25 15:29:44] - yeah, thanks, i didn't look this morning. maybe my options were dumb purchases. and maybe its good i didn't short gme.
~a[2021-01-25 15:28:40] - a: That's a triple in about the past 5 trading days. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:28:04] - a: GME up 77% today as of the time I am writing this (which is important, because it remains super volatile). -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:23:36] - Pierce: "did incognito in firefox and chrome to confirm" Sorry, missed this. Maybe it's not personalized to person but by time? Not sure. I do see Boebert and Don Jr. replies in the comments section (no Cawthorne). Yeah, I have no idea what the "s=19" does there. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:18:52] - Daniel: "I'm curious about WHY you think the media has a bias" There's two different ways of reading this question, so I apologize if I am answering the wrong one but I think the simple answer is the majority (perhaps vast majority?) of journalists are liberal. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:16:02] - Pierce: I mentioned Kamala's ethnicity and gender because since she became the Democratic VP nominee, I honestly think I've seen more coverage about her ethnicity and gender than I have of her record and prosecutor. And as somebody who has serious issues with her record as prosecutor, I found that frustrating. I'm old fashioned and believe the content of her character matters more than the color of her skin. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:12:51] - Pierce: I think the comments are personalized to the person reading them maybe? I don't see the same things you do when I look at the comments now. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:12:08] - Pierce: "where did you get that link from, paul?" ... Twitter? I'm not sure I understand your question. The tweet is from reuters and I believe it was brought to my attention via a retweet by Matt Welch (editor for Reason), although I could be wrong about that. No idea why the comments section would be different with that link altered. -Paul
[2021-01-25 15:07:51] - Daniel: I'm not sure how the Trump reference has relevance? Both things can be right: Trump was a giant asshole who said horrible things and Kamala comparing barely having time to squeeze in a cycling class with a prisoner dying of thirst is ugly. Why would the Washington Post edit it out otherwise? Would you feel the same way of Ted Cruz joked about how missing golf was like not being able to breath with a knee on your back? -Paul
[2021-01-23 04:16:26] - gotta say, it's weird to me to be talking about this in terms of the february timeframe. I was watching this story develop when we were in india in mid-january, and expected a hellish experience getting through customs in chicago since that's where the second confirmed US case had entered. but there was no extra screening, there were no extra precautions. early action could've saved so many lives. - pierce
[2021-01-23 04:08:20] - the CDC certainly made mistakes along the way and I am not absolving it as an institution or the individuals involved in specific bad decisions. what I'm saying is that it's not "either trump screwed up or the CDC did", it's probably "both trump and the CDC screwed up, and trump made it more likely for the CDC to screw up". we have at least one example from that narrow timeframe of an obviously-correct CDC recommendation being axed. - pierce
[2021-01-23 04:06:02] - trump was reportedly furious that he hadn't been briefed about the passengers, which is kinda my point. organizations behave, collectively, according to their incentives. trump had created an incentive to never contradict him, and he'd said they'd "shut it down". - pierce
[2021-01-23 04:05:48] - that's also when the state department and "a top Trump administration health official" overruled the CDC to let 14 diamond princess passengers who had tested positive fly back to the US. - pierce
[2021-01-23 04:05:41] - on the reuters thing, it looks like some decent journalism about institutional failures, but their earliest evidence is a february 8th email saying they shouldn't test people who had arrived from wuhan. trump had said on february 2nd "We pretty much shut it down coming in from China". - pierce
[2021-01-23 03:49:23] - wow, just before I reply to the reuters thing, the scary algorithmic stuff: as is, that link has a "more tweets" section starting with a publicity stunt by madison "cry more, lib" cawthorne, then a don jr. retweet of a nypost article, then a couple of boebert tweets (did incognito in firefox and chrome to confirm). without the "?s=19" it's just the reuters tweet and replies. where did you get that link from, paul? - pierce
[2021-01-23 02:16:05] - https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1352722952224124929?s=19 This seems tangential to the earlier talk about Trump's planning (or lack thereof) and why the career CDC people didn't do more. -Paul
[2021-01-22 22:53:48] - and I'm glad psaki isn't entertaining that bullshit one iota more than she has to. - pierce
[2021-01-22 22:52:17] - which is a super rude answer, except when you consider the context: the churchill bust was the subject of an extremely classy statement from now-PM boris johnson... when Obama moved it out of the oval office he said that was "a symbol of the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British empire". so now they're excited to reinvigorate the puffed-up scandal of whether the US president is obligated to have a churchill bust. - pierce
[2021-01-22 22:44:51] - heh, on a related note, apparently psaki got asked yesterday whether biden was going to change the colors on air force one and said she'd circle back, and today said "I can confirm for you here the president has not spent a moment thinking about the color scheme on Air Force One." then she later got asked about the removal of the churchill bust from the oval office and said "oh, such an important question, it's the plane of today!" - pierce
[2021-01-22 19:28:08] - you forgot the starbucks salute. ~a
[2021-01-22 19:25:13] - a: we're allowed to criticize democrats, and we do criticize democrats, as I just described. what we shouldn't do is puff up the importance of anything remotely negative just so the quantity of negative coverage of biden/harris matches that given to trump. that way lies tan suits and dijon mustard and binders full of women and the dean scream. - pierce
[2021-01-22 19:15:09] - maybe you're fighting against the "media bias exists against republicans" coming from paul? i'm on your side there. media bias might exist, but its not as black-and-white as paul makes it seem. ~a
[2021-01-22 19:13:12] - pierce: because trump was awful we are not allowed to criticize democrats? isn't this whataboutism? sorry, i'm on your side here, but i'm not sure why we won't allow any criticism of tasteless jokes made by aggressive prosecutors just because trump was terrible, horrible, and no-good. ~a
[2021-01-22 18:59:17] - to bring this back around: critical reporting on trump's disastrous handling of a pandemic, or his support for a violent coup, or his pardoning of war criminals employed by one of his major campaign contributors, are not comparable journalistic importance as making sure we all remember that time harris told a tasteless joke. - pierce
[2021-01-22 18:58:36] - and we can simultaneously approve of her actions or positions on other issues, or how her election can help representation for historically-underrepresented groups. that's not hypocritical or evidence of trying to erase criticisms. - pierce
[2021-01-22 18:58:21] - let's be real: harris has received justified criticism about her prosecutorial background and her positions on law enforcement. they were widely covered during the democratic primaries and contributed to her early departure. people criticized biden for picking her, given the focus on police abuses this year. no one's getting fired for covering that story. - pierce
[2021-01-22 18:58:14] - but meanwhile it gives license to so much gleeful handwringing about the evil left-wing media. the reason headline is a fucking 1984 reference. paul latched on with some snark about her ethnicity and gender, unrelated to the topic of the article. - pierce
[2021-01-22 18:57:47] - I mean, christ, the WaPo edit has virtually no real consequence. almost no one's going back to reread a 2019 profile, almost no one would come away from the old version utterly convinced that harris hates prisoners and wants them to suffer, and so the effect of the edit is trivial. it's mostly weird just because you wonder why they bothered. if there's a conspiracy to revise harris's history this would be a huge waste of resources. - pierce
[2021-01-22 18:57:09] - mig: you know that's not what Daniel was implying. I think he's just making the point that we're talking about wildly different scales of offense. - pierce
[2021-01-22 18:29:44] - because trump was awful, nobody can criticize democrats for 100 days. its the law. ~a
[2021-01-22 18:08:16] - daniel: so because Trump was awful we are not allowed to criticize democrats? - mig
[2021-01-22 17:06:55] - Paul: I would agree that the media has a bias. I'm curious about WHY you think the media has a bias vs why I would say the media has a bias. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:58:44] - paul: maybe we should talk specifics on kamala's prosecutorial record? without cherry-picking: was she actually a bad prosecutor? are all prosecutors bad? ~a
[2021-01-22 16:55:28] - Paul: Because I truly and genuinely believe that what is in those articles isn't that bad and isn't even in the same universe as trump. Maybe she's as terrible and I just don't know, but those articles don't make a case for that to me in any way. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:53:10] - I think people make the please sir may I have some more joke a lot. Maybe one can argue that its always in poor taste but it doesn't rise to gross with me. Again she wasn't making any direct comparison to someone actually dying of thirst. I think calling it gross right after coming out of the era of Trump is poor calibration of adjectives. If that is gross what adjective describes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGI? -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:53:05] - Daniel: The media was this was with Romney and Bush too. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:52:36] - Daniel: AND that the media so very clearly has a bias in how they cover politicians and it is WAY beyond just a uniquely Trump thing. Trump was awful and the media was openly antagonistic. Great! But don't actively try to cover up for other politicians who are just less awful. Hold their feet to the fire too. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:50:37] - Daniel: My point is that Kamala Harris is pretty awful when it comes to lots of criminal justice stuff that liberals claim to value (especially in this BLM / George Floyd moment we just had) and beyond that she seems to not even have any sympathy for prisoners. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:49:25] - And if there was nothing wrong with it, then why is the Washington Post removing it? -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:49:13] - Daniel: I can believe she wasn't actively trying to make fun of prisoners dying of thirst, but it does seem to be a particularly gross comparison to make of associating prisoners dying of thirst (especially when you're a prosecutor with as mixed a record as she has regarding incarceration) with... barely having time for your cycling class. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:43:36] - Paul: If your point is that Kamala isn't perfect and has some serious flaws, then also sure. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:41:15] - If the goal here is to show how the media treats people differently than Trump sure. Cause Trump was fucking crazy and did way worse shit on the regular. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:40:59] - https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/ "In one prison, 54 prisoners shared a single toilet. Preventable deaths due to substandard and overstretched medical care occurred every five to six days. Suicidal inmates were locked in telephone-booth sized cages for 24 hours at a time." Not necessarily Kamala's fault, but these were the prisons in her state. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:40:40] - And didn't actually laugh at actually jailing parents because again she didn't actually do that. She laughed about telling her staff to 'look really mean' presumably to try and be taken seriously. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:40:37] - "Probably because we were discussing other more obvious gaffes she had made?" who is we? ~a
[2021-01-22 16:39:27] - Paul: I think the point I would take away from the milwaukee thing is that inmates aren't regularly dying of thirst and that when one did it was a problem that was correctly labeled as bad, people were punished, and things were fixed. Again I don't think she is making fun of actual prisoners in the first article. The article about jailing parents is also dumb because she didn't actually want to jail parents? -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:35:43] - Although gaffe is probably the wrong word because it wasn't some slip of the tongue, it's more an insight into her mindset as a prosecutor. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:32:23] - a: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/kamala-harris-laughed-jailing-parents-truancy Probably because we were discussing other more obvious gaffes she had made? -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:27:57] - Daniel: The point is just to show, for the millionth time, how the vast majority of the mainstream media is really interested in ferreting out and repeating every misstatement from certain politicians and covering up the same for others. -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:26:39] - Daniel: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/3-milwaukee-jail-staffers-charged-dehydration-death-mentally-ill-inmate-n847521 Yes, inmates die of thirst. If there was nothing wrong with it, why was it removed? Would you have the same opinion if it was Trump who made those comments? -Paul
[2021-01-22 16:24:45] - I don't really care about the move one way or the other but also "but its disappearance suggests something about the Post, and about the way traditional political media are preparing to cover Harris now that she's one heartbeat away from the presidency." seems like a reach too. Like its trying to imply without having to actually say what its implying that there is some conspiracy. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:23:42] - a: Cause reading it she's just making a joke about how ridiculous her own lack of control feels to her? I don't read that as her making fun of prisoners dying of thirst? Are prisoners dying of thirst? I'm not sure what your point here is Paul. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 16:19:52] - dumb move by the washingtonpost. if it was such a big deal, though, why weren't we discussing it 18 months ago? ~a
[2021-01-22 16:14:44] - https://reason.com/2021/01/22/the-washington-post-memory-holed-kamala-harris-bad-joke-about-inmates-begging-for-food-and-water/ But at least she's a black, south asian, female, amiright? -Paul
[2021-01-22 15:56:36] - a: Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your question about evidence of lack of something. -Paul
[2021-01-22 15:55:13] - daniel: sure, the pdf wasn't meant to be the all "proof" but also supported by the very obvious fact that vaccine distribution has been happening nationwide on a nontrivial scale. - mig
[2021-01-22 15:45:34] - daniel: agreed. 1/2 million doses per day isn't nearly enough, imo: we're going to need to scale up a bunch. but, we are beating many other countries at vaccine deployment (per capita). ~a
[2021-01-22 15:42:54] - I think pointing out that vaccines were shipped / delivered implies planning on some part is true and seems a stronger case than the pdf below. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 15:35:28] - mig: i hadn't heard fauci's take. i found this from your link: "In a White House press briefing Thursday afternoon, Fauci rejected the suggestion that the Biden administration would have to build a distribution plan from 'scratch.'" fauci's take means something. you've convinced me, biden's play (lie?) was dumb especially when they tied it with keeping fauci on the team. ~a
[2021-01-22 15:31:39] - a: does Fauci's take not mean anything? The Biden complaints don't seem to jibe with some non-right wing rag journalists either. - mig
[2021-01-22 15:24:33] - paul: "Couldn't you show the thing? Like Miguel did?" that's a counterexample. a counterexample only works to show evidence against absence, not for absence. and as pierce and daniel already pointed out, the counterexample is lacking. ~a
[2021-01-22 15:21:29] - paul: it was clear. i knew it was a joke. it was a good joke. but i assume the press won't be as hard on biden because biden will (hopefully) be blatantly and shamelessly lying with a slightly lower frequency. ~a
[2021-01-22 15:19:50] - a: "can you show evidence of a lack of a thing?" Couldn't you show the thing? Like Miguel did? Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, it was a joke about how the press handled Trump (and how I am assuming they WON'T be handling Biden). -Paul
[2021-01-22 15:01:52] - That said maybe there is some other doc somewhere that would be more of a current plan so /shrug maybe its out there. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 15:01:20] - mig: Reading through that I'm also fine with the characterization that Biden/CNN/Pierce are putting forward. It looks like they laid out the start of what a plan would be but then didn't go anywhere with it. That pdf doesn't really provide a plan that Biden can build off of here in January. -Daniel
[2021-01-22 14:59:29] - paul: can you show evidence of a lack of a thing? i mean, you can show evidence of places that don't have a thing, but that's not exactly the same. ~a
[2021-01-22 14:49:31] - mig: "The Biden administration is claiming, without evidence, that there was no plan"
-Paul[2021-01-22 13:17:30] - pierce: "no one's saying there was literally nothing," That is literally what the CNN headline says and literally what the Biden Admin is saying, "There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch," - mig
[2021-01-22 03:33:08] - so I think the takeaway is that we had this massive federal apparatus in place that ought to have something more specific than "do what we theorized about in 2016". I think it's fair to characterize that as a "non-existent" plan in every sense except an excessively literal one. - pierce
[2021-01-22 03:31:47] - it was september, and they had only reached out to "almost 30" private organizations? read that list and tell me it doesn't read like a high school essay trying to pad its bibliography. in conclusion, covid is a land of contrasts. - pierce
[2021-01-22 03:31:40] - and, like, from page 10: HHS’s Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs has established communication channels with almost 30 private sector organizations representing hospitals, physicians, nurses, nursing homes, community health centers, health insurance issuers and plans, drug stores, influencers, foundations, patients, and seniors’ groups to provide regular updates on the work of OWS, including the distribution program." - pierce
[2021-01-22 03:31:04] - but that PDF you linked was published in september. it has basically nothing specific to the actual vaccines that got approved. it vaguely references a contract with mckesson (from 2016) being used for distribution. the graph about vaccine dose availability on page 5 has a marker for "baseline as of 07/16". it leans on the vaccine confidence project, from 2010. little, if any of what it proposes is tailored to covid. - pierce
[2021-01-22 03:30:36] - mig: that's acknowledged in the CNN link: "We're certainly not starting from scratch, because there is activity going on in the distribution". no one's saying there was literally nothing, as you said there were vaccines already distributed. - pierce
[2021-01-22 02:51:31] - and i mean how were tens of millions of doses delivered and adminisitered with no plan behind it? Does the vaccine distribute itself? (insert epstein meme here plx) - mig
[2021-01-22 02:42:08] - a: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/strategy-for-distributing-covid-19-vaccine.pdf it looks like there was a distribution plan? We can debate the merits of it but to say there wasn’t a plan seems verifiably false. - mig
[2021-01-21 23:10:35] - of course, if the UK or South African variants are more vaccine-resistant than we believe, or a new variant appears that's even more infectious and/or resistant, then all that could change easily. - pierce
[2021-01-21 23:09:08] - well, it's not uniform. there's a threshold we can reach at which most of us can mostly return to mostly-normal life. theaters would still be closed, and no live concerts or anything, probably still wearing masks in high-turnover places like grocery stores... but we can start hanging out with people in our houses again and respond to outbreaks with temporary regional lockdowns and contact tracing. - pierce
[2021-01-21 23:01:15] - biden says he wants to get 100 million americans vaccinated in 100 days (1 million per day, or .3% per day). fauci says if we could get 80% vaccinated by the end of the summer, that would mean that we would be able to return to normal in the fall (that's even faster: ~1.5 million per day). either of those would be awesome, but wtf those are both some crazy ambitious goals (we're only seeing 0.5 million / day). ~a
[2021-01-21 22:46:26] - yeah, agreed. I think he knows if he started listing all the shit he had to wade through under Trump then that would become the story, instead of the actual facts he was there to deliver. but he did want to demonstrate that things have fundamentally changed in how this will all be handled and communicated. - pierce
[2021-01-21 22:38:53] - interesting. i didn't know that amazon was going to work on vaccine distribution. fauci is a pretty good politician . . . he was asked a bunch of times to bash trump, and he sidestepped it a few times. but then he did bash trump a bit at the end (17:00 in your video). ~a
[2021-01-21 22:24:54] - heh. Fauci giving a press conference now, got asked a question and responded that he couldn't speak to it, he'd just be handwaving... then said "one of the new things in this administration is if you don't know the answer, don't guess, just say you don't know the answer". the joy on his face as he's saying that is really infectious (so to speak). - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:57:40] - a: I wish you luck. - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:55:55] - pierce: we will see, won't we. i did end up buying a few puts. my first options ever! they aren't worth much (small potatoes) but we'll see if gme crashes before, or after, they expire.
~a[2021-01-21 21:54:40] - I shouldn't say "foreign state involvement", more "organized foreign involvement". - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:50:58] - citron posted their video about why GME will go back to $20. given the hate they get on WSB, I'm willing to believe (even disregarding my suspicions about foreign state involvement) that they're getting a lot of hacking and harassment attempts as he describes. I don't agree with every argument but I think it's a pretty compelling case overall. - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:36:10] - I keep thinking about how Trump probably would've easily coasted into a second term if he was anything less than colossally corrupt and incompetent. the pandemic is exactly the kind of emergency that would normally be free approval ratings for a leader who mostly lets the professionals do their jobs (e.g. Bush and Giuliani after 9/11) - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:35:19] - a: yeah, well anyone arguing in good faith would recognize that, if the president has any non-ceremonial responsibilities, they'd include "order departments to organize vaccine distribution" during a pandemic that's killed 400,000+ Americans. the lack of a smoking gun doesn't absolve Trump because there should be ample evidence that he acted. - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:20:17] - pierce: true. but we do get to read articles written about a "nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan" and trump can't tweet about how its fake news. ~a
[2021-01-21 21:18:28] - I doubt we'll find a "smoking gun" here, evidence that Trump explicitly said he didn't want to develop a vaccine rollout strategy. like many dictators, he prefers a system where subordinates do what they think he wants because they're scared of him. he can take credit for their successes, and deny responsibility and deflect blame onto them for the failures. - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:10:25] - Trump created an incentive system in which trying to raise awareness of the pandemic or to mitigate it might lead to severe, high-profile punishment. Fauci disregarded those incentives by speaking out and making himself too dangerous to fire. and I'm guessing many others in the government reacted by resigning rather than participate in the inaction. but the system as a whole failed because Trump incentivized it to fail. - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:10:23] - a: yep, or at least people assumed that's what Trump wanted. I'm honestly amazed Fauci managed to weather it and come out the other side, and to me this all easily explains the institutional inability to organize a pandemic response. I've believed for a long time that institutional behavior almost always reflects the incentive systems in place, even though individuals may sometimes disregard those incentives. - pierce
[2021-01-21 21:06:05] - pierce: now that i've read your comments more carefully, i agree with your assessment. there was no plan because that's the way trump wanted it to be? ~a
[2021-01-21 21:04:46] - paul: ah, oops! i get it now. sorry i didn't read carefully enough. ~a
[2021-01-21 21:04:08] - a: I think he is addressing your surprise that the government didn't have a plan in place for vaccine rollout. -Paul
[2021-01-21 21:03:02] - pierce: of course . . . ignoring that independentent isn't a word. ~a
[2021-01-21 21:02:36] - pierce: oof, too long ago: i forget, what argument was i making on this? i said "i think [january 6th] was an existential threat to the independentent legislature", and that wasn't firm enough? ~a
[2021-01-21 20:59:30] - so when it became clear that Trump's approach to the pandemic was to downplay it, anyone in the government with something to lose (their safety and that of their family, their career and reputation) would want to avoid the topic like the plague, so to speak. I feel like I saw articles about Fauci being on the brink of termination every week since March, because he continued to escalate concerns and highlight the risks publicly. - pierce
[2021-01-21 20:58:43] - similarly, the failure of the first impeachment effort a year ago demonstrated to everyone in the government that Trump wouldn't be punished for firing people who contradicted his messaging or otherwise insulted him (he even got away with retaliating against an impeachment witness, Alexander Vindman, and his brother Yevgeny). - pierce
[2021-01-21 20:57:55] - a: there are already reports and analysis that fear of Trump's wrath kept intelligence and law enforcement agencies from acknowledging the threat presented by his supporters in direct terms, contributing to their failures to prevent or respond to the January 6th attack. - pierce
[2021-01-21 20:48:21] - a: I have now.
-Paul[2021-01-21 19:59:23] - paul: did you and dave resolve your 2020 bet? ~a
[2021-01-21 18:03:11] - nope. ~a
[2021-01-21 17:56:52] - a: Did you and Andrew resolve your 2020 bets? -Paul
[2021-01-21 16:18:53] - but no plan? the obamacare rollout probably had like dozens of "plans" at each level, that all went to shit. but there were plans. ~a
[2021-01-21 16:17:34] - a: *Shrug* It won't surprise you that I am of the opinion that the government, even if headed by a halfway competent person, is not overly great at doing things. The Obamacare rollout was a disaster and I think we all agree that Obama was decently smart and competent, even if we disagreed with his positions. -Paul
[2021-01-21 16:16:21] - a: i use year month day for everything too; checks, documents, computer clocks, etc. that's why i was so confused by a 'palindrome date' i was like... 2021-01-21? 01-21-2021? 21-01-2021? 2021-21-01? what? i forgot that americans would drop the leading zero - aaron
[2021-01-21 16:15:15] - a: I could believe that there are many people who could have done it if instructed but perhaps thought someone else was doing it since they weren't instructed. Something like that? But since no one was instructed then it just didn't happen.
-Daniel[2021-01-21 16:01:07] - paul: sure, but aren't there, like, career govt people that work at the CDC that are serious about their job? like . . . planning is many peoples jobs (that aren't even related to the trump white-house). even if they're just talking about, like, a "whitehouse plan", there were a ton of professionals hired on to do real life-and-death work, and i'm sure at least some of them did their jobs at least some of the time? ~a
[2021-01-21 15:58:36] - a: Why can't it be real? Haven't we had enough evidence that attention to detail and advanced planning was not Trump's strong suit?
-Paul[2021-01-21 15:51:09] - this can't be real, right? i mean, i get it, that most vaccine distribution is happening at the state level, but there must have been some plan to divvy up / manage the vaccines between the states? ~a
[2021-01-21 15:49:12] - i kinda wish we'd get with the rest of the world on a lot of stuff, but very few localities use the ISO for dates: year-month-day. i've started using it for everything though, even when i sign my name on documents etc. ~a
[2021-01-21 15:28:00] - i also hate month day year. it has always seemed so backwards. ~a
[2021-01-21 13:38:21] - (however, i take some shame in that i briefly forgot which month it is.) - aaron
[2021-01-21 13:37:55] - i take some pride in that after hearing that yesterday was a "palindrome date" i spent about a minute rearranging the numbers and trying to recall the more esoteric ways of writing dates before happening upon "1/20/2021". i almost never use month day year for anything anymore - aaron
[2021-01-20 22:04:43] - figured
~a[2021-01-20 22:04:31] - a: I don't want to go long Gamestop at this level. I was much more interested in a short term bet when it was 1/10th the price. -Paul
[2021-01-20 21:52:50] - paul: i could always buy the option from you directly, and we could leave this stupid stock market out of it. ~a
[2021-01-20 21:52:02] - just focus on all of your brilliant moves in the past, and then you can stop sulking. its what i do
~a[2021-01-20 21:51:16] - a: For Gamestop? Sure. I'm just going to sulk in the corner and regret that I never bought my option months ago.
-Paul[2021-01-20 20:34:50] - ah yes, i just found that. 100 isn't too bad. i could afford to buy a put. maybe i'll do that? ~a
[2021-01-20 20:34:24] - a: I believe options are done in lots of 100 (not 1,000), which is another reason why I so rarely use them. -Paul
[2021-01-20 20:33:58] - understood. ~a
[2021-01-20 20:33:42] - a: I think options are allowed... with restrictions. So if you sold a... put? You would need to have the cash available in your IRA to cover that if it gets exercised, I believe. At least, that's how I understood it. -Paul
[2021-01-20 20:33:28] - nobody posted it here, nope. ~a
[2021-01-20 20:32:09] - https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/01/gaming-the-system-how-gamestop-stock-surged-1500-in-nine-months/ Ars Technica on Gamestop (did somebody post this already?) -Paul
[2021-01-20 20:28:14] - paul: you said options require 1000 shares, is that right? there's no way i'd buy 1000 puts. that's definitely out of my price range
~a[2021-01-20 20:24:15] - according to usnews i'm allowed to trade options in an ira. it's weird that they'd let options but not shorts. selling options OR shorts can create "issues"
~a[2021-01-20 20:22:34] - paul: it seemed like they maybe let me change my ira to allow margin/shorts/options/etc. are options allowed in an ira? i kinda understand why this wouldn't be allowed, i guess: its not exactly like i'm allowed to just deposit money into my account to solve some problem i've created. iras (obviously) have lots of rules about adding money. ~a
[2021-01-20 20:20:22] - a: Ah, yes, there are limits to options that require.... margin? In IRAs. That's not the right term, but I remember wanting to try to do something and I learned I needed to have sufficient cash sitting around to cover everything in order to do it and that just seemed silly. -Paul
[2021-01-20 20:16:24] - i'm the one trying to short gme after all. (btw, i figured what i did wrong. i'm not allowed to short in an ira. damn it) ~a
[2021-01-20 20:15:50] - yes. ~a
[2021-01-20 20:15:23] - a: I definitely wouldn't say that as a blanket statement. is it fair to see the various details here and at least call them collectively a yellow flag? - pierce
[2021-01-20 19:56:23] - pierce: if that's your overall point, then maybe i agree. i think manipulation using social media is potentially a major problem. pump and dump is illegal. and i feel strongly that social media makes pump and dump much easier to execute *and* harder to prosecute. (otoh, when you point out that eastern europeans shouldn't invest in or discuss gme, that's where we'll differ
) ~a[2021-01-20 19:53:27] - wsb seems like an ideal forum for doing targeted market manipulation (via misinformation or otherwise), especially for foreign actors who aren't going to have the SEC show up at their door. citron seems to have a focus on fraud, maybe some of the hate for them on WSB is fed by someone trying to retaliate for unfavorable coverage. - pierce
[2021-01-20 19:52:33] - anyway, this is all a bit of a derail because I'm by no means an expert on the nuances of international markets and I shouldn't be arguing their benefits or drawbacks. I was more talking about this situation, how it's odd that multiple people in those regions would be so specifically focused on gamestop and/or citron and so successfully get traction with that messaging on reddit. - pierce
[2021-01-20 19:40:54] - we in the US have that luxury, yes, so it's easy for me to say "it's dangerous to invest in a foreign company on a foreign exchange" because that's not very limiting to me personally. that doesn't mean it's wrong, though. - pierce
[2021-01-20 19:37:18] - paul/pierce: "Wait, we're communists and don't believe in capitalism". yeah, this would affect a ton of stuff traded on the straight-up vanilla nyse. alibaba, one of the largest companies in the world, for instance. ~a
[2021-01-20 19:34:20] - pierce: i'm confused, you've drastically changed the goalposts. if that's your line, i think everything (almost everything?) is listed on us stock markets. baba is on nyse. smnny, vwdry, and gctaf are listed on otc markets. ura is traded on one of nyse's world exchanges. i'm not sure i understand your new point. i guess we're all in the fine now because most every large/medium-cap public foreign company is traded on us exchanges? ~a
[2021-01-20 19:28:51] - Pierce: So, if China were to suddenly be all like, "Wait, we're communists and don't believe in capitalism", then I could be totally SOL. -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:28:13] - Pierce: Sure, I think it's fair to be more cautious of foreign companies not listed on US exchanges. There are probably fewer safeguards and less stringent auditing. As it is, I am the tiniest bit leery of my JD position since it is an ADR, which technically means I own shares in some shell company and not in JD itself. -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:23:29] - a+paul: maybe I'm overestimating the meaningfulness of this, but almost all the companies you named are listed on US stock markets. I'm not saying you shouldn't invest in a foreign or multinational company, and we do have the luxury that most companies would list on an exchange that is "local" to our country. - pierce
[2021-01-20 19:23:23] - https://twitter.com/VP/status/1351938078643003393 I'm sorry, I know I am a terrible person, but it is impossible for me to read this NOT in the Warcraft 2 peasant voice in my head. -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:22:58] - Pierce: I don't always assume they are wrong, to be clear. I just don't let them scare me out of positions I have confidence in. -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:22:18] - Pierce: Yup. I'm sure they have to be right sometimes. I can only speak to the times they've issued short reports on companies I follow, like Shopify (https://citronresearch.com/citron-exposes-the-dark-side-of-shopify/) "Shopify Immediate Price Target- $60" They are currently over $1k -Paul
[2021-01-20 19:14:53] - paul: from a little searching, citron reported on fraud at valeant pharma, the price dropped from 148 to 119 (low of 89) the day it happened, people went to jail for it, and the stock continued to deteriorate following more controversies. - pierce
prev <-> next